The U.S. Can't Ignore Europe's Unscientific Regulations
America's economy is increasingly intertwined with the European Union's, and unfortunately the litany of bad European imports hasn't ended with Russell Brand. Today, Brussels bureaucrats increasingly subject chemicals to the guillotine of fact-challenged, agenda-driven science. And while we have yet to see how Trump will execute his campaign pledges on trade, one thing is certain: the United States can no longer ignore Europe’s proposed unscientific restrictions of safe and economically important substances used in countless everyday products.
One of the most egregious examples is a proposal by France to classify titanium dioxide, a naturally occurring pigment crucial to myriad products from paints to pharmaceuticals to sunscreen, as a carcinogen. Titanium dioxide has been safely used in products for over a century—it replaced dangerous lead components as a white pigment in paints and is one of the safest substances used in sunscreens to absorb the sun’s UV rays and protect against skin cancer.
Certainly, materials posing a threat to human health should be appropriately regulated. But the French case against titanium dioxide has no scientific basis.
Studies following thousands of industrial workers reveal no increased mortality from cancer, even after decades of intense titanium dioxide exposure. Titanium dioxide also hasn’t been shown to cause cancer in animals, with the exception of rats exposed under extreme “overload” conditions – akin to what one might experience chronically breathing a thick cloud of dust. In fact, European Chemicals Agency guidelines recommend against giving significant weight to such “overload” studies because similar effects are unlikely to be seen in humans.
Classifying titanium dioxide as a carcinogen would severely limit its use in most applications, creating serious consequences for the U.S. The substance is used in a vast volume of products both exported to and imported from the EU, and in most cases there are no available substitutes.
The bad science doesn’t stop there. The EU’s environmental arm is considering nominating the substance octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP).
These terms probably mean nothing to most readers, but D4 is an essential material used in the creation of virtually all silicone products. Once a material is classified as a “POP” they are severely restricted and phased out of use. This extreme action is reserved for chemicals that persist in the environment and can travel over long distances. However, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that D4 tends to degrade rather than persist in the environment and doesn’t travel.
The EU’s “environmental champions” overlook the fact that silicone chemistry is crucial to the production of solar panels, windmills, and energy efficient buildings. By empowering renewables, D4 saves over 9 times the carbon dioxide emissions used to produce it. Ironically, eliminating D4’s use through a POP designation could have long-term environmental impacts.
In another scientifically questionable move, the European Commission recently unveiled its proposal for a haphazard system to identify chemicals as “endocrine disruptors” without actually confirming whether named substances can actually harm the human endocrine system.
A wide array of naturally occurring and man-made substances can interact with the human endocrine system, including sunlight, soy, and caffeine. Instead of drafting criteria to restrict only chemicals that show evidence they have enough potency to harm the human endocrine system, the EU is moving toward a broad, hazard-based approach.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a solution of its own – the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Rather than issuing a blanket rejection of any chemical showing endocrine activity, the EPA integrates hazard and risk to determine whether restrictions are warranted, and provides a gradation of regulatory responses appropriate to the level of exposure.
With our own models for chemical regulation already in place, the U.S. needs to flex its muscles over poorly proposed regulations streaming from across the pond to ensure Europe bases its decisions on sound scientific evidence to protect American consumers.
America's economy is increasingly intertwined with the European Union's, and unfortunately the litany of bad European imports hasn't ended with Russell Brand. Today, Brussels bureaucrats increasingly subject chemicals to the guillotine of fact-challenged, agenda-driven science. And while we have yet to see how Trump will execute his campaign pledges on trade, one thing is certain: the United States can no longer ignore Europe’s proposed unscientific restrictions of safe and economically important substances used in countless everyday products.
One of the most egregious examples is a proposal by France to classify titanium dioxide, a naturally occurring pigment crucial to myriad products from paints to pharmaceuticals to sunscreen, as a carcinogen. Titanium dioxide has been safely used in products for over a century—it replaced dangerous lead components as a white pigment in paints and is one of the safest substances used in sunscreens to absorb the sun’s UV rays and protect against skin cancer.
Certainly, materials posing a threat to human health should be appropriately regulated. But the French case against titanium dioxide has no scientific basis.
Studies following thousands of industrial workers reveal no increased mortality from cancer, even after decades of intense titanium dioxide exposure. Titanium dioxide also hasn’t been shown to cause cancer in animals, with the exception of rats exposed under extreme “overload” conditions – akin to what one might experience chronically breathing a thick cloud of dust. In fact, European Chemicals Agency guidelines recommend against giving significant weight to such “overload” studies because similar effects are unlikely to be seen in humans.
Classifying titanium dioxide as a carcinogen would severely limit its use in most applications, creating serious consequences for the U.S. The substance is used in a vast volume of products both exported to and imported from the EU, and in most cases there are no available substitutes.
The bad science doesn’t stop there. The EU’s environmental arm is considering nominating the substance octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP).
These terms probably mean nothing to most readers, but D4 is an essential material used in the creation of virtually all silicone products. Once a material is classified as a “POP” they are severely restricted and phased out of use. This extreme action is reserved for chemicals that persist in the environment and can travel over long distances. However, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that D4 tends to degrade rather than persist in the environment and doesn’t travel.
The EU’s “environmental champions” overlook the fact that silicone chemistry is crucial to the production of solar panels, windmills, and energy efficient buildings. By empowering renewables, D4 saves over 9 times the carbon dioxide emissions used to produce it. Ironically, eliminating D4’s use through a POP designation could have long-term environmental impacts.
In another scientifically questionable move, the European Commission recently unveiled its proposal for a haphazard system to identify chemicals as “endocrine disruptors” without actually confirming whether named substances can actually harm the human endocrine system.
A wide array of naturally occurring and man-made substances can interact with the human endocrine system, including sunlight, soy, and caffeine. Instead of drafting criteria to restrict only chemicals that show evidence they have enough potency to harm the human endocrine system, the EU is moving toward a broad, hazard-based approach.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a solution of its own – the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Rather than issuing a blanket rejection of any chemical showing endocrine activity, the EPA integrates hazard and risk to determine whether restrictions are warranted, and provides a gradation of regulatory responses appropriate to the level of exposure.
With our own models for chemical regulation already in place, the U.S. needs to flex its muscles over poorly proposed regulations streaming from across the pond to ensure Europe bases its decisions on sound scientific evidence to protect American consumers.
